What was the problem again?

The name really isn't important. The name Linux is settled and people who use Linux eventually learn about GNU. In the end, I can use GNU components on Linux, BSD, MacOS and even Windows. So it doesn't really matter for GNU, GNU is everywhere. That's a real triumph, whether people know about it or not. They did it for humanity, not for their names.

GNU / Linux is an overstep. It is inaccurate and misleading.

“Linux” as the majority of people that know the term use it refers to a family of operating system “distributions” that share a large number of common traits ( including the Linux kernel ).

GNU / Linux is a poor name for the majority of these distributions. It would be an ok name for a specific distribution from the Free Software Foundation.

Not all Linux distributions use Glibc. You mentioned Alpine Linux. There are others. This does not make Alpine less of a Linux. ( this is a tangent but saying “most” software does not work on MUSL is wildly inaccurate ).

Not all Linux distributions use the GNU utils. Check out Chimera Linux sometime. If I sat a Linux user down at Chimera, they would be perfectly at home. They can of course even install Flatpaks or use Docker or Podman. Because it is Linux even with no GNU.

Not all distros use GCC. I have listed one already.

Saying Linux was “never completed” is wildly inaccurate. Linux has been completed in many different ways and it continues to expand and evolve.

Even on the most popular Linux distros, GNU represents only a tiny fraction of the software installed. In most distro repos, the most popular license is MIT. So even if we pretend that GPL means GNU ( itself a totally inaccurate overreach ) a GNU label for the entire system makes no sense.

As above, there is more MIT licensed software in most distros. Should it be MIT / Linux? Red Hat probably contributes more code than anybody ( including to Glibc and GCC ). Should all Linux be Red Hat / Linux? Both those are bonkers but, fair attribution wise, they make more sense than GNU / Linux does.

Yes, Richard Stallman has asked all the Linux distros to call themselves GNU. He should not have. He should stop. There is no problem to solve other than he has not stopped asking.

GNU is a massively important project historically. The GPL is a vital piece do the Free Software landscape. These need to be celebrated and acknowledged. This is not the way to do it.

But let’s take another look at history. First, of course Linux would likely not have caught such early momentum without GNU utils and certainly not with GCC. Linux had its own libc but Glibc was better. Sure.

Did you know that the author of GNU HURD originally wanted to use the BSD kernel? That would have been an interesting alternate history. GNU may have truly emerged as an OS alternative. It could have filled the space now occupied by Linux. We would all be using the GNU OS.

In 1992, GNU / Linux may have been a decent description of what Linux was at the time ( though that is a bit of a slap to XFree86 ).

FreeBSD was a complete OS before anybody ( anybody free ). However, they got caught in a lawsuit around whether they were allowed to be free. Linux appeared in the space left by BSD and, it was while BSD was under a legal cloud that Linux filled its sails with wind. By the time that was settled, BSD was way behind. Not as far behind as GNU without Linux would have been though.

If there had been no Linux kernel, the BSD lawsuit would have ended and the world would have had a free UNIX while GNU was still a collection of utilities with no kernel.

If Linux had not appeared and FreeBSD had taken off, few of us would probably ever have heard of the GNU Project. Many GNU fans totally underestimate how important Linux has been to them.

Finally, how is GNU a desktop OS ( especially in 2024 )?

Here is the full list of GNJ projects. “All GNU packages” straight from the horses mouth:

https://www.gnu.org/software/software.en.html#allgnupkgs

First, many people will be surprised how short that list is. My distro offers 70,000 packages. Fewer than 500 are GNU. That is what I was saying above.

But where is the display server? Where is the sound server? Where is the desktop environment? How may GUI applications are there?

You can say that that GNU kernel is “unfinished”. If GNU still wants to be a desktop, it would be better described as “unstarted”.

It is not 1992 anymore. GNU is not a desktop OS.

Of course a GNU desktop could use X11, Wayland, and Mesa. Those are all Free Software but they are are not GNU. In fact, all those are MIT licensed and not even GPL.

None of the desktop environments are GNU. There is GNUstep but its homepage says explicitly that it is “not a desktop”.

Anyway, GNU is a massively important project. Let’s educate people on why it did and does matter. But let’s not destroy its legacy and goodwill by abusing its name and misrepresent its role today.

I don't know if grouping disparate projects under the "community" label has any worthwhile benefit. Given the label is meant to classify related operating systems, the label should provide an accurate description of the basis of the system. A simpler solution would be to just say GNU/Linux is a subcategory of Linux (and maybe even sub-sub-categorize by package manager or init system or whatever makes the most sense). Similarly, I think Android and its derivatives are worthy of being its own classification of Linux operating system (as long as you don't try to claim "it's not real Linux" or whatever).

With regards to software compatibility, I think it's rather the other way around - software written for "Linux" usually works on any POSIX operating system, and sometimes even Windows. Unless you're talking about binary compatibility, which is meaningless in the Linux space anyway.

FreeBSD would be a Community/BSD OS.

I don't think *BSD folks would appreciate being involved in this discussion as they're just a different ball.

On the other hand, you just can do something silly and call everything LiGNUx, but even then people won't be happy.

And why the names of the distros are a problem??

I was thinking ontologically to resolve this problem. It is often confusing to explain to ordinary people why Linux has so and so differences and so and so commonalities, and then the community gets toxic once you get to whether it's GNU or Linux.

This "problem" only exists for kernel and distro devs. The ordinary person doesn't care one iota about how it's classified or by what name it's called.

GNU exists, but they lost the naming war, similar to Kleenex and Velcro. They can insist all they want to call it GNU/Linux (or whatever), but few will bother to join them, because it's not as easy to write or say as just "Linux." Linux is no longer just for hobbyist computer nerds, and average users will never care about making the brand more complicated.

Just curious: how would you classify Chrome OS? As Community/Linux or Community/Linux/Chrome (to recognise how much heavy lifting the browser is doing). And would you want to call Google's additions 'Community' or something else?

eh just call it gnulinux or musllinux or whatever

Nerds like us can argue until we are blue in the face, 99% of the public will continue to call it Linux. GNU/Linux is a good way to prompt those not in the know to learn some of the history while still being understandable as Linux, that is the current and best solution, I do not think it is unresolved.